OMGlessness, the comments section on that post is rife with MRAssholes going off about how feminists are the new KKK Nazis. It’s like they are trying to out ludicrous one another. This is going to call for not only popcorn, but scented candles too!
Speaking of misandry, I think we need some new holiday themed hand towels.
;)

Don’t mind me, I’ll be showering and scrubbing furiously to get the stink off.

The Pullet Patrol Decontamination Team is on their way to remove the toxic masculine waste in an environmentally safe manner. They’ll receive their grog soaked corn rations, charged to your account, when they return (otherwise they don’t return for days).

FTR, I do feel MRAs get ‘too much press’, as it were, considering how little they DO. Even RAdfems manage more (for better or worse). Still, it’s not like exposure on national TV will help them – the average person (which is to say, the average misogynist) will only go so far.

I think part of the problem is that men’s movement and women’s movement advocates talk past each other because they’re defining their terms differently. In general, men understand gender equality to mean that men and women get to compete on an equal basis under the rules that have always existed, whereas women understand it to mean that the rules themselves will be changed. For example, if men and women have the same equal shot at becoming partner in a major corporation by working 70 hour weeks, having no life away from the office, no family time, no vacations and no holidays, so long as that path is equally open to both men and women, men would say that’s gender equality. Women, on the other hand, might say that family is important and so corporations need to offer flex time, on-site child care, maternity leave, and if they don’t, then women end up disadvantaged even though the partnership path on its face appears to be gender neutral. Such examples could be multiplied in many different contexts.

Since the two sides are talking about two different things, it’s really no surprise that each side thinks the other is a bunch of entitled assholes. So maybe instead of flaming each other, there could be a dispassionate conversation about what exactly gender equality would actually look like, and how nobody ever gets all of what they want.

“I really wouldn’t mind shooting a [expletive] dead in the face, they are evil, all of them,”

What they don’t tell you is that this statement does not exist in the comments anywhere on the site. Rather, it exists as a quotation in an article on the site explaining that this comment and similar comments were deleted because such comments will not be tolerated.

And this:

While Elam told “20/20″ that his site does not promote violence or hate toward women, some of his writing appears otherwise. In a post on his website, Elam wrote that women on welfare are “little more than thinly disguised layabouts.”

Criticism of the welfare system does not promote hate towards women, and it certainly does not promote violence toward women. The authors are so keen to claim that AVFM promotes hate and violence that they can’t even see that the quoted sentence doesn’t support their claim. Is this the most hateful and violent statement they were able to find on AVFM during their research?

Since the two sides are talking about two different things, it’s really no surprise that each side thinks the other is a bunch of entitled assholes. So maybe instead of flaming each other, there could be a dispassionate conversation about what exactly gender equality would actually look like, and how nobody ever gets all of what they want.

That’s a generous and reasonable hypothesis, but there are two problems with it. One is that the MRM is overrun with misogynists.

The other is that that “conversation about what exactly gender equality would actually look like” has been going on for over 40 years now, and it has amply addressed the fact that, in order for human civilization to continue, somebody has to take care of the children, and there is no reason why such necessary work 1) Should be done exclusively by women, or 2) The performance of such work should not only be unpaid, but actually serve to economically penalize the people who do it. (That’s assuming that the work scenario you provide–70 hour work weeks, no vacation, no flex-time–actually makes for better productivity and therefore is a system worth maintaining on purely bottom-line terms. Which I suspect is arguable.)

Any honest and rational MRAs, assuming they’re out there, should be aware of this conversation. Unfortunately, their voices are utterly drowned out by the likes of Paul Elam, and if they want to be taken seriously they need to denounce such clowns.

abewoelk #16
The problem with your hypothesis is that you constantly put men against women as if we were different species. That’s bullshit already, so there isn’t much else to discuss, because, if you haven’t noticed already, you’re commenting on the website of a guy who doesn’t agree with “men” in your scenario and neither do most of the male readers here.

Stacy, you are right that the men’s movement has misogynists in it, just as the women’s movement has fringe nuts in it too, as does probably every other movement on the planet. (A woman once told me that I was a sexist for eating meat since the meat may have come from a female animal.) That doesn’t mean that both men, and women, don’t have legitimate grievances that shouldn’t be discussed. I would agree with you that child care has fallen disproportionately on women. The other side of that coin is that women who are unable to financially support their children get social services whereas men who can’t financially support their children get branded deadbeat dads and sent to jail. It’s also true that if there’s an unplanned pregnancy, the woman holds all the cards as far as deciding whether to bring it to term (in which case he’s going to be stuck with child support for 18 years whether he wanted the child or not). In fact, there’s a particularly atrocious court case from Alabama in which he got drunk and passed out at a party, she jerked him off and impregnated herself, and he’s now paying child support. So it’s not like the unfairness is all on one side.

Giliell, no, men and women are not different species, but they do sometimes have different interests, and sometimes those interests are in conflict, and it’s ignoring reality to pretend otherwise. And, sometimes that means that nobody gets all of what they want.

The men’s movement directly blames feminists for all their problems, including custody court cases and alimony (despite the fact that feminism has nothing to do with this). Men and women’s interests are not in conflict, and I have no idea why you think they are. None of the things you mentioned are Men vs Women. The only thing you mentioned that could be taken that way is reproductive coercion which is done by both sexes.

But again, the men’s movement is anti-feminist. They do very little to actually help men out and do much more to try to hate on feminists. Stop pretending otherwise. And jesus drink some coffee or something.

You want to talk about inequities in the system? Fine. They’re there. Women get screwed by most of them, but it’s true — there are also inequities that screw over men. I am honestly concerned about the culture of boys that leaves many of them poorly prepared for college — women are kicking their asses academically, on average, and it’s not because the men are less intelligent.

But if you want to support a movement that addresses both sides of the problem, it’s feminism. That’s the side that recognizes that sexism hurts both men and women.

This show is not going to be critical of men’s rights, but of the men’s rights movement and some of the rabid misogynists who cloak themselves in the mantle of equality. If you really care about giving fathers equal parenting rights and responsibilities, for instance, you should be outraged at the troop of clowns and assholes, people like Paul Elam and John Hembling and Dean Esmay and Karen Straughan, who have hijacked that effort. People who whine that they must keep their entitlements rather than adapting to a changing world are the problem.

Dudes actually win a disproportionate number of custody cases in the US: kids go to the primary caregiver, allegedly: That’s almost always the mother. Its also almost categorically untrue that a father gets thrown in jail for lacking money. Child Support payments are based on income: to go to jail, you have to willfully not inform the court of your unemployment, over a period of at least a year, if that can even send you to jail in your state.

“

fact, there’s a particularly atrocious court case from Alabama in which he got drunk and passed out at a party, she jerked him off and impregnated herself, and he’s now paying child support. So it’s not like the unfairness is all on one side.

Its overwhelmingly on one side. I want a national graded tax for child support, also.

I’m pretty sure the age of the “paternity suit” ends with the Roe v Wade decision. Perhaps in marriages where the man doesn’t want kids and the wife does? and gets pregnant despite his wishes? I guess? I’ve never heard of that happening although statistically it must…really rarely. Weird scenario Abe…

Okay, I’ll bite. What are these legitimate grievances men have in a man-dominated society?

This is not the grievance that likely abewoelk is indicating* but men I think have a justifiable complaint against a society that favors aggression, confidence, and emotional impassivity as badges of masculinity. It puts them in danger. Not to the degree of course that it puts non-men** in danger, but nonetheless.

It could all end if we just decided that it should.

*Or maybe it is.
**For want of a better term that recognizes the non-binary nature of gender. I’d be happy for some help here.

This is not the grievance that likely abewoelk is indicating* but men I think have a justifiable complaint against a society that favors aggression, confidence, and emotional impassivity as badges of masculinity. It puts them in danger. Not to the degree of course that it puts non-men** in danger, but nonetheless.

Point taken.

Hell, I still struggle with some of this shit. Especially the idea a man must always be sexually aggressive, never sexually receptive, or he is not a real man.

Og*: So do I, and it pisses me off. True story. I don’t cry. I don’t know exactly how I learned not to, but I know that it had everything to do with hiding emotion, because in our society, “emotion = weakness”. A few years ago, one of my closest friends died tragically of cancer. I felt that deeply. Hell. I still feel that deeply, but I haven’t wept. Not as he declined over a span of four years, not when I got the news of his death, not at his memorial service, not even in a quiet moment alone when I tried–which is maybe a weird thing to do, but whatever. And if I can’t really express emotion normally and healthily about something of that magnitude, I can’t imagine what other kinds of things are just bottled up. Will I explode some day, and will that explosion be in the form of an infarction, stroke, or aneurysm?

*Not trying to make this about the menz…but my only experience with the patriarchy is as a man.

Ahem. And I realize that I probably could use psychological help, but I have a “challenging career” and a family to look after; I’m afraid that doing so would erode my family’s and colleagues’ confidence in me. So that’s probably a similar problem.

First of all, your applied assumption that any grievances men have must be little more than privileged whining raises the obvious question: Why would you expect men to respect your grievances when you obviously don’t respect theirs? Respect is a two-way street. Every time I see the perjorative “mansplaining” or something similar, I know off the bat that I’m talking to someone who expects to be listened to and respected, but won’t return the favor.

That said, here are some examples of what I would consider legitimate male grievances. My listing of them does not imply that I don’t recognize that women have grievances too, that they are real, and that men and women should both work toward eliminating them.

1. 25% of all children born in wedlock have fathers who are not the husband, and the law in most states does not permit husbands to challenge paternity, even if the wife’s adultery ends the marriage. He is going to be stuck supporting somebody else’s child, and that’s that. (And by the way, maybe there would be less adultery if that weren’t the case; I would certainly be less inclined to sleep with my neighbor’s wife if I knew I might have to support any child that resulted.)

2. One of the side effects of easy divorce — and I do not support making divorce more difficult; I am merely pointing out unintended consequences — is boys being raised without fathers. Sometimes this is because the ex-wife actively thwarts the father remaining active in the child’s life. There is a wealth of social science data that boys raised without fathers are at far higher risk for criminality, substance abuse, dropping out of school, and psychological problems.

3. The over-criminalization of too many things (including the moronic war on drugs) that give the US the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country in the world, with all the social problems that result. This falls far more heavily on men since men make up 90% of the prison population.

Citation extremely fucking needed for that case in Alabama. The closest one I can find with googling is a woman supposedly going to a sperm bank and asking for her ex-boyfriend’s sperm and being inseminated there. Which, honestly, should not be a paternity case at all as most sperm banks have legal protections for donors.

As to the rest, mothers generally GET custody because they’re the ones who ASK for it, as well as antiquated, patriarchal ideals about children belonging with the mother.

“Some reasons why wives are awarded custody more often are because they more often request custody of the children and also because of strong legal presumptions and traditions that favor the mother as the custodial parent, especially when the children are young (11,12). In recent years more fathers are taking a more active role in child care after divorce mostly through the adoption of laws that provide for joint custody.”

At geekgirlsrule, No. 35, the case is S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996. Please note there is also a whole boatload of cases holding that boys who were the victims of statutory rape — underage boys who had sex with older women — are also liable for child support, despite their legal status as rape victims.

your comments are so thoroughly stuffed with wrong, I don’t even know where to start correcting it. Should I start with the blatant falsehood that disagreements between defenders of the status quo and regressive activists on the one hand and people trying to affect progressive social change on the other are merely about vocabulary? Should I start with the bullshit about the possibility of equal competition under patriarchal rules? The nonsense about equally open paths in that very same patriarchy? The even bigger nonsense about feminists wanting family care provisions for women only? The America-centric nonsense about equality in life being about climbing the corporate ladder? The bullshit about sitting down and having “dispassionate” conversations with people who think women need to be beaten once in a while? The toxic crap about how no one can have everything, when the topic is social justice? The false equivalence between primary caregivers and non-custodial parents paying child support? The dehumanizing comparison of a woman’s body to a man’s wallet? The hilariously wrong assumption that everyone who disagrees with your bullshit is female?

Tough choice.

Well, since I haven’t had coffee yet, I think I’ll just settle for laughing at you instead of pretending things can be explained to you.

As jadehawk noted, wow, so much wrong in your comments its hard to know where to start. This particular bit stood out as a good starting point.

Respect is a two-way street. Every time I see the perjorative “mansplaining” or something similar, I know off the bat that I’m talking to someone who expects to be listened to and respected, but won’t return the favor.

Respect IS a two-way street. Mansplaining is not a perjorative, it is a term that describes the phenomenon of dudes who are so fucking clueless and entitled that they see the term mansplaining as a perjorative, and then go online to explain how they just know anyone using that term is not respecting their natural male authority. How dare they not listen to you!!

Point 1. If you want sexual assault against men to be taken seriously, then you side with feminists who also want this taken seriously. I have never heard an MRA talk about male sexual assault unless it results in a “sperm-jacking” like this.

Point 2. The reason that he was still ordered to pay child support was because the money is for the child, who is an innocent in all of this, regardless of how it was conceived. The court feels that denying the child the financial support of it’s father would be an act harmful to the CHILD.

A better question to ask in all of this is, if the man sued his rapist for custody of the child, would he get it? He has witnesses stating that the woman admitted to raping him. And I daresay it would be better off not being raised by anyone who feels rape is perfectly fine under any circumstances.

Oh, and one final note, the reason that the statutory rape of boys by adult women isn’t taken seriously is also because of hetero-normative patriarchal thinking.

I got into tons of internet arguments with people about the Mary Kay Letourneau case, because I feel she should have been put UNDER the jail, along with all the men who sexually abuse young girls (and young boys). But because the patriarchal narrative is such that boys who are seduced by older women are “lucky” and it’s every boy’s “dream” to sleep with his hot teacher, she wasn’t treated like a male offender. And it isn’t feminism that led to that.

. 25% of all children born in wedlock have fathers who are not the husband, and the law in most states does not permit husbands to challenge paternity, even if the wife’s adultery ends the marriage. He is going to be stuck supporting somebody else’s child, and that’s that. (And by the way, maybe there would be less adultery if that weren’t the case; I would certainly be less inclined to sleep with my neighbor’s wife if I knew I might have to support any child that resulted.)

Horse shit. 25% OF PEOPLE WHO SUSPECT THEIR WIFE CHEATED ON THEM were correct. Its a huge leap in logic, given the self selection in the sample.

the stupid 25% excuse bothers me on so many levels that I can’t contain my thoughts in any coherent sentences
It sounds like position .and breeding rights. Would the advocates of that argument recommend adopting the behavior of lions?
aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!
uncle frogy

The 25% comes directly from the sample of the population who specifically requests paternity testing and therefore already have some reason to question it. This paper gives an upper limit of 1.9%. I’ve read other papers on this that say 1-3%.

That’s very different from 25% and anyone quoting that number, especially without a source, is immediately suspicious in my view.

As the rest of abe’s comment is in much the same vein, blaming women for father’s not being involved in their children’s lives, or apparently blaming women for criminal behavior on the part of men, I think it’s pretty clear where ze stands. The mind boggles at the wrongness.

Every time I see the perjorative “mansplaining” or something similar, I know off the bat that I’m talking to someone who expects to be listened to and respected, but won’t return the favor.

You lying little shitstain on the bedsheets of respect. You ask for respect and then do this? Please quote, verbatim and with appropriate citation, where I have used the word “mansplaining”. I’ll even help. Hmm, let me see.

5? Nope.
28? Nope.
31? Nope.

Wow. My whole three commments and not once does the word “mansplaining” appear.

Do you know what we call people who claim that someone said something when they didn’t? How about liar.

Your ‘grievances':

1: A perfect example of how patriarchy hurts men. First, we are not supposed to think of women as human beings, but rather as reproductive devices to pass on the manly man’s genes.

2: This one is just pure bullshit. The true corellation lies in poverty. Single mothers are many times more likely to be poor. But, I guess poverty is not, in any way, shape or form, corroborative with things like lack of education, lack of medical services, lack of mental health services, or likelihood of a child becoming a criminal.

3: You could make an even better argument there that that is a war on black men who have a far higher incarceration rate than white men.

And your #3 is another example of how the patriarchy hurts men. Juries are less likely to convict women of violent crimes because violence is expected from men, not women.

At Jadehawk, No. 37, yes, I get it: You hate capitalism. I understand that. I don’t agree with you, but I do understand that to be your position. However, as it happens, we’re having a conversation about sexism, and capitalism is not, per se, sexist. Women who are willing to play the game can do quite well for themselves, and many of them have. However, choices preclude other choices, and choosing to play the game means not being able to make other choices that are in conflict with that one. That’s true for men, and it’s true for women. The only thing capitalism cares about is the bottom line, and if you make money for the company, you’ll do well.

If you want to have a broader conversation about economics in general, fine, but that conversation is not this one.

On the issue of what percentage of children born in wedlock have fathers other than the husband, rather than quibble over that, let’s say for sake of argument that in all of human history there has only been one such child born of an adulterous relationship. My broader point remains, which is that that husband has no legal recourse — he is stuck paying to raise somebody else’s kid. The law simply doesn’t care that he’s not the father. And I don’t see how anyone can make the claim that that’s fair. Go after mama’s paramour just like you would any other biological father.

Ogvorbis, where did I say you used the term mansplaining? My actual objection was to your comment that in a male dominated society you couldn’t imagine that men would be disadvantaged, which is objectionable for the reasons I already gave. I simply then used the term “mansplaining” as a further example of the same phenomenon. And, whatever apologists for double standards wish to say about it, it a man dismissed something a woman said by saying “typical women’s logic” or something similar, you’d have no problem seeing the sexism.

And, whatever apologists for double standards wish to say about it, it a man dismissed something a woman said by saying “typical women’s logic” or something similar, you’d have no problem seeing the sexism.

You mean, people who have a more overarching contextual interpretation of the situation in the bold, right?

If you said “typical women’s logic” you are disparaging all women for it. Mansplaining is disparaging the man doing the explaining for not considering other perspectives. The fact that you can’t see the broader context should clue you in to your blind spots.

Geekgirlsrule No. 39, I understand that the child needs support. I get that. But that’s not the point, as it also isn’t the point when a boy is the victim of statutory rape. You know how, when abortion rights are discussed, the subject inevitably turns to women so desperate to not have a baby that they resort to clothes hangers and back alley abortions. Well, there are some men who feel exactly the same way about being parents, but because they’re guys, nobody cares. There’s a child who needs support, and if it financially cripples a young man for life (or makes it financially impossible for him to have a child later with a woman with whom he actually wants to raise a child), tough shit. He needs to just shut up and write checks.

Imagine the roles were reversed in that Alabama case. Suppose a man raped a woman and she became pregnant, and by some strange set of circumstances he ended up with custody. Suppose he then successfully got a child support order against her. I have no doubt that under those circumstances, most of the people here would be screaming bloody murder (as would I). Well, other than the fact that the genders are reversed, I really don’t see much difference between that case and this one/

Throwaway, any reasonably creative lawyer can find an “overarching contextual interpretation” can explain away just about anything, just as defense lawyers for rapists can often explain away what looks like lack of consent to the rest of us. That doesn’t change the fact that the term “mansplaining” is a sexist term on its face. If someone used the term “womansplaining”, even if only to describe a particular woman making a particularly nutty argument, would you not see that?

That doesn’t change the fact that the term “mansplaining” is a sexist term on its face. If someone used the term “womansplaining”, even if only to describe a particular woman making a particularly nutty argument, would you not see that?

No, I would not agree that ‘womansplaining’ is sexist when: the woman in question is using her gender as the deferential quality to gauge the merits of another persons experience and how they relate to reality, dismissing them based on no other information than what they themselves have experienced. The ‘-splaining’ meme is not sexist. ‘Whitesplaining’ is not racist.

At Jadehawk, No. 37, yes, I get it: You hate capitalism. I understand that. […] However, as it happens, we’re having a conversation about sexism, and capitalism is not, per se, sexist. Women who are willing to play the game can do quite well for themselves, and many of them have.

Yeah, when they’ve tried twice as hard as a man who has ended up doing just as well.

Capitalism isn’t, in the abstract, sexist; but capitalism as it exists in the real world is!

On the issue of what percentage of children born in wedlock have fathers other than the husband, rather than quibble over that,

You mean, “rather than admit that I completely misrepresented the data”?

let’s say for sake of argument that in all of human history there has only been one such child born of an adulterous relationship. My broader point remains, which is that that husband has no legal recourse — he is stuck paying to raise somebody else’s kid. The law simply doesn’t care that he’s not the father. And I don’t see how anyone can make the claim that that’s fair.

Personally, I’d favor a short time window for a spouse to challenge paternity (as some states allow). But there’s a pretty sound policy behind not allowing it. Birth doesn’t come as a shock — there are signs of pregnancy. If you choose to marry someone, and you choose to stay married to her once she’s pregnant, you’re committing yourself to supporting that child. To allow a husband to revoke that commitment because he’s not the biological father is to say that biological paternity trumps the social and legal bonds that he voluntarily entered into. And that generally isn’t our policy as a society. The “presumption of paternity” laws apply in both directions: they also bar biological parents from showing up after the fact and asserting parental rights. (Some have tried: see Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989))

Go after mama’s paramour just like you would any other biological father.

Yeah! Punish that guy!

This is the problem with the MRA mindset towards child support. They pay lip service to the notion that child support is supposed to be for the child’s benefit, but mostly they treat it like it’s something society does to punish fathers. Hence the complaining about the “poor, innocent” guys who were “duped” into getting someone pregnant, and the complaining that in the situations you describe society is “punishing” the “wrong” guy.

Funny how the MRA sympathizers can’t get to the root of the MRA complaints. They all go back to the concept that the MAN isn’t in charge, and and can’t dictate HIS terms no matter what the law/society says. Arrogance personified, and also totally morally bankrupt, as they try to avoid paying for their mistakes. Nothing but libertudism speaking.

Personally, I’m disturbed by these two threads that run through that rhetoric:
(1) Genetics are the only way that a child really is the child of their parents. Without the blood tie, parenthood doesn’t really “count.”
(2) Fury at the idea that a woman may choose her sexual partners, and not be 100% the possession of her husband.

@Nerd of Redheads, No. 54 “and expect to be laughed at by the state legislatures” — thank you for making my point. The guy is getting screwed over but any suggestion that he is entitled to justice will result in him being laughed at. In a similar vein, if you ever have the misfortune of being a man who is being physically abused by a woman — it does happen — don’t bother calling the police; they’ll laugh at you too.

@55 and 56, I didn’t misrepresent anything; I disagree with your interpretation of the data. However, I don’t see it as productive to spend 100 comments arguing about it, and I’d rather discuss my main point.

@56, the point isn’t about the man being punished. The point is that the man is being stolen from. It’s not his kid. You could, with equal justice, randomly pick someone from the phone book and hit them up for child support.

@58, I don’t personally care who a woman, married or otherwise, chooses to sleep with (though in fairness, if she gets to sleep around, so does her husband). However, if she gets pregnant with another man’s baby, the person whose baby it is, is the person who should pay to raise it. Marriage is, among other things, a contract, which requires an informed choice on the part of the people making the contract. I seriously doubt most men would understand their marriage contract as including responsibility for supporting other men’s children.

Finally, No. 57, the issue isn’t that the man isn’t running things. The issue is that the man is no more the slave to the woman than the woman is the slave to the man. She can do whatever she likes; she should not expect him to pay for it.

The guy is getting screwed over but any suggestion that he is entitled to justice will result in him being laughed at. I

No fuckwitted idjit. He is being laughed at because when they married, they took responsibility for ALL children born during the marriage, period, end of story. Legal history. You have no point, other than the juvenile “I am not responsible” from immature MRA fuckwits. You proved my point. These alleged men you talk about aren’t adults. They are liberturds….

nd, whatever apologists for double standards wish to say about it, it a man dismissed something a woman said by saying “typical women’s logic” or something similar, you’d have no problem seeing the sexism.

What systemic marginalization of men does ‘mansplaining’ perpetrate? Spoiler alert: The answer is ‘none’. It is a single standard, albeit one which appears to elude you.

On the issue of what percentage of children born in wedlock have fathers other than the husband, rather than quibble over that

Um, no. You’re going to concede you were obviously wrong in a way that revealed you as either a sucker or a liar on the matter. It’s not some quibble that you spewed an MRA talking point that was obviously factually in error.

My broader point remains, which is that that husband has no legal recourse — he is stuck paying to raise somebody else’s kid.

Not only is that not true, it is irrelevant; child support is for the sake of the child, not to punish the father. That’s why I want it as a national graded tax, reimbursed to the parents of all children beneath a given income level, rather than letting the children of the poor flounder. If you had some concept of what matters, you might as well. But no, it’s growing increasingly obvious what you are doing.

The law simply doesn’t care that he’s not the father.

Again, untrue, but he is the father in a realistic sense. WTF kind of jackass is going to look at a kid he raised for 10 years and say “nope, not my blood, fuck off and starve”?

I have no doubt that under those circumstances, most of the people here would be screaming bloody murder (as would I).

Over the father getting custody, yes. Over the child support order, no.

I really don’t see much difference between that case and this one/

One of them actually happened,a nd the other is you inventing a reaction from us.

I didn’t misrepresent anything; I disagree with your interpretation of the data. However, I don’t see it as productive to spend 100 comments arguing about it, and I’d rather discuss my main point.

25% vs 1.9% is not an “interpretation of data” disagreement.. You “interpreted” a number by completely misrepresenting the data you linked to. In the real world, that’s not called “interpretation”, that’s called “lying”. But I do understand that you don’t want to discuss how and why you lied.

Fucking hell. What’s with this emphasis on the biological father? A commonality of DNA is no guarantee of parental worth. The best fucking thing my father did for me was to die. I would have taken any other man as a father figure over him so long as that person chose to fulfill that role and did so with love and compassion. And I would willingly fill that role for someone should the need arise, regardless of my genetic relationship to them.

25% vs 1.9% is not an “interpretation of data” disagreement.. You “interpreted” a number by completely misrepresenting the data you linked to. In the real world, that’s not called “interpretation”, that’s called “lying”

Or, alternately, spectacularly misinterpreting the data. But then, upon being corrected, instead of saying “Sorry, I misinterpreted those numbers,” he called it a “disagreement” over “interpretation of data.” Which is lying.

abewoelk, in your response to me you completely ignored the substance of my comment at #21. Just for starters, I didn’t say that “the men’s movement has misogynists in it.” I said that it is overrun with misogynists.

Don’t take this as an invitation to further discussion with you–you lack argument skills and you’re dishonest. Both are fixable (assuming the dishonesty is due to ignorance and motivated reasoning rather than an innate character flaw,) but here’s a tip: hanging out in the MRM ain’t going to help you any with that. You’re welcome.

Your hypothetical example bears no relation to reality. If your wife cheats and gets pregnant your choice is to divorce her and make her prove paternity, or stay married and raise the child. If you stay married you aren’t paying child support so nobody is “stealing” anything from you.

If its suddenly stealing, and not really your kid several years down the road, that makes you an evil hearted shit stain who would rather punish a child then face your own shortcomings as a husband and father.

I am stunned by the hatred and abuse of victims around here just because of their gender. I looked into the topic of paternity uncertainty and, besides it being a foundational premise in the field of evolutionary biology and thus ironic that people posting on Dr. Myer’s blog would act like it is some kind of made-up man-premise, I have found that it is very real and harmful to all. I will get to addressing the abuse and use of gender roles to rationalize and justify abuse here later.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
A story that is years old that demonstrates the harm both financial and emotional paternity fraud can do to both the husband and the children. A particularly sad story was when a woman lied to a young man and her whole family and town as to who the father of her daughter was, ave the kid up for adoption then decades later died. The daughter found her dead birth mother, her family and the alleged father. Bonded, made various medical decisions based on HIS medical past and then found out he was not her biological father, now she will never know.

2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/fathers-day-ashley-madiso_n_3417949.html
“Nine percent admitted that they had done so, and that their husbands are not aware of it. An additional 16 percent admitted that they’re not positive about who fathered one or more of their kids. And among the women in those two groups, 72.4 percent revealed that it’s their youngest child whose father is in question.”

4. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_ethbio_patfraud.htm
“Lest anyone think that there is nothing but misogynistic bigotry behind the concern over accurate claims of paternity, a 1999 study by the American Association of Blood Banks discovered that in 30 percent of 280,000 blood tests performed to determine paternity, the man tested was not actually the biological father of his children.”

“If its suddenly stealing, and not really your kid several years down the road, that makes you an evil hearted shit stain who would rather punish a child then face your own shortcomings as a husband and father.”

Blame the victim much? Shortcomings as a “husband and father”? What Patriarchal gender roles are you referencing when you say “shortcomings”? Which shortcomings are they? NOT crying, NOT laboring, NOT being masculine enough? Or what really I ask?

As for the rest of this victim blaming, that is only cool to do when the victim is a man, I would say if a man’s worth (I will say that a “man’s worth” is objectifying a man and making him into an ATM machine) is based on his willingness to father and raise a child that is not his, then where is the woman’s worthlessness for sleeping with a man other than her husband? Where is her cop-ability and responsibility in this scenario? Is she not a slut to be shamed for violating a contract to her partner, god and government?

As for the data, it seems split relative to social constraints put on males and females, but if we split the difference we get a academically acceptable rate of 10% of Western Nations.

As for the Cecil Adams post that dealt with “sly glances” and the surrounding community mocking the husband; the cost and harm is apparent. Emotional, and psychological abuse by all. Look at Dale Gribble on King of the Hill.

Sad that some hate men so much that they blame even them for trusting a woman such as their own wife, sad that even if a man finds out the truth and wants to move on he is blamed for failing to live up to his wife’s possibly impossible standards.

Can’t we all agree that cheating is wrong regardless of who is doing it and that only those committing wrong acts should pay for their transgressions?

besides it being a foundational premise in the field of evolutionary biology

Evolution cares about net population growth, not you specifically.

people posting on Dr. Myer’s blog would act like it is some kind of made-up man-premise,

Thank you for answering the question I posed by being that jackass. You’re not making me feel less horrible about the ones who answered that by KNOWING that jackass though, so the effort is lost.

“Nine percent admitted that they had done so, and that their husbands are not aware of it. An additional 16 percent admitted that they’re not positive about who fathered one or more of their kids. And among the women in those two groups, 72.4 percent revealed that it’s their youngest child whose father is in question.”

So of the women brazen enough to use a website specifically for cheaters, 25% match the stereotype you hold to be true of women in general, and you think this isn’t more of the same shit? That seems a low number after you select for all the people who are liable to do it.

“A leading Beijing paternity testing center says up to 30 percent of tested men were not the biological fathers of their children.”

Once again, “Men who think their wives were cheating on them and had kids are usually wrong.”

As for the rest of this victim blaming

You losers aping us is almost cute. Nobody has said word one on who carries the fault; well, nobody but you.

Is she not a slut to be shamed

No.

for violating a contract

Nope.

god

Extra nope. How you thought that’d work here, I don’t know.

As for the data, it seems split relative to social constraints put on males and females, but if we split the difference we get a academically acceptable rate of 10% of Western Nations.

You’re ‘splitting the difference’ because you know the population with 1.9% incidence is considerably higher than the population with 25% incidence, by orders of magnitude. No.

Look at Dale Gribble on King of the Hill.

It’s telling you losers keep relying on fiction to try to make your points.

Can’t we all agree that cheating is wrong regardless of who is doing it and that only those committing wrong acts should pay for their transgressions?

I don’t generally care about cheating so long as the people having sex are consenting.

Blame the victim much? Shortcomings as a “husband and father”? What Patriarchal gender roles are you referencing when you say “shortcomings”?

For fuck’s sake, mrbobcat, when we talk about husbands disowning the children they’ve raised for years because they learn the kids weren’t biologically theirs, the shortcoming is an utter failure to emotionally care for and bond with the child they’ve been fathering* for years.

The subject under discussion in that scenario isn’t cheating. We all agree cheating is wrong.

The subject is children. The reason the law holds husbands responsible for their wives’ children isn’t that the law favors women over men. It’s that the law places the childrens’ welfare over all.

* Believe it or not, “fathering” has meanings besides “provided the sperm that fertilized the egg that resulted in this human being.” Some of which have precious little to do with Patriarchal gender roles. Meanings like “establish and maintain a caring relationship with a child as one of its primary caregivers.”

this parenthood argument reminded me of the play King John by W.S.
the king is asked to settle an inheritance around the father not being the father
King John:—- Sirrah, your brother is legitimate;
Your father’s wife did after wedlock bear him,
And if she did play false, the fault was hers;
Which fault lies on the hazards of all husbands
That marry wives.
uncle frogy

More misrepresentation, which may be dishonest or simply MRA stupidity and confirmation bias. Here’s what the abstract of the article mrbobcat linked to says:

A survey of 67 studies reporting nonpaternity suggests that for men with high paternity confidence rates of nonpaternity are (excluding studies of unknown methodology) typically 1.9%, substantially less than the typical rates of 10% or higher cited by many researchers.

So what this is quite clearly not saying is that 10% or higher is the typical rate of nonpaternity across the whole population. It is saying that “many researchers” use such figures, without giving any information as to how those researchers arrived at such figures. To make it even clearer what the article is not saying, the following appears in the second column of the preview page:

The relative frequencies of men with high and low paternity confidence are unknown, which makes it difficult to estimate true nonpaternity rates for human societies.

What the article is saying is that if, as a man, you have high confidence you are the father of your wife/partner’s child, you are very probably right. Sorry mrbobcat, that doesn’t fit your MRA script.

My brother and his wife adopted a child. That man (he’s in his 30s now) is treated the same as the couple’s unadopted children. While he’s always known he was adopted, he calls my brother and sister-in-law Dad and Mom, just as his siblings do. Love quite obviously flows in both directions. Contrary to the MRAs’ beliefs, it is possible for a man and a woman to love and care for a child who is not their biological off-spring.

First of all, your applied assumption that any grievances men have must be little more than privileged whining raises the obvious question: Why would you expect men to respect your grievances when you obviously don’t respect theirs? Respect is a two-way street. Every time I see the perjorative “mansplaining” or something similar, I know off the bat that I’m talking to someone who expects to be listened to and respected, but won’t return the favor.

Which is, oddly, the same fucking quote I used before. Then you followed up with two samples that show how patriarchy hurts men, too, and one that claims that single-parent households hurt boys (not girls) and give not evidence.

@Rutee
I like how you skipped over the most damning data, the 1999 blood bank testing of 280,000 men, of who only 70% were the actual fathers. I love how you pick and choose the data you wish to address. You also misrepresented the 1.9%, but maybe you are “that (moronic) jackass” that does not understand what the study said. The 1.9% of men that had very high confidence they were the father were wrong, normally most men that think they are the father are wrong 1 out of 10 times. So that means 10% of men are cuckolded.
Paternity certainty is part of evolutionary biology studies it goes into determining which traits are propagating and through which individuals and is used to help calculate fitness. You do know what fitness is don’t you? You would not be THAT Jackass would you? Paternity certainty was used to disprove many hypotheses about avian mating habits.
So a woman that makes an agreement, a legal, social and even religious agreement is not to be held accountable for violating it? Have you not studied any Ethics of Philosophy? Look up Rawls and the like, would lead very nicely into your whole Social Security, care for the child and the population not the man or the individual POV.
So you are saying the words that come out of a woman’s mouth are meaningless and hold no value or weight. Wow, well thanks for the flask-back to the 50’s, I missed Madmen but I see now why they ignored female opinions … their words mean nothing.
I will end responding to you there, since you just burned your own side enough by stating women’s words are meaningless and that all they care about is what they can get out of men and society.
PS. If population growth is all you are concerned about then I think your wishes have been granted.

MRbobcat, why do you sound like an MRA who won’t take the responsibility for what they do in life, and are excusing those who won’t live up to their commitments? Which is every child born while a man is married is his. Your misogyny is showing.

@ Stacy
There are only two kinds of men that would do such a thing fools and saints.
This is what we are talking about … which is he and why?
He is a saint if he did it before or after his wife told him who the real father was.
He is a fool if she lied, cheated and mislead the poor man into wasting his life, time and money.
The crux of the issue is what the woman did, did she lie or was she honest. His status cannot be determined without her action or intent determined. The women have all the power in this scenario.
It is wrong, utterly wrong, to drag the government into this situation and force a man to do something against his will, this is an abuse of Power that equates to rape. This man no longer gives consent for his involvement in this “affair” and to force him by force is antithetical to Freedom and Choice.
Also, the government plays big daddy for other women’s children, so essentially the government is just forcing the man to pay when they would rather not.
The only reason for consent in a reproductive relationship is an equitable propagation of genes. I could go into a treatise, but consensual sex means nothing, especially in a marriage, if both partners do not feel the other is worthy, worthy of each others love, time, affection, money, trust and genetic endowments.
To use someone else simply for sexual gratification is to simply masturbate into another or using another for your own selfish ends.
If Randian selfishness is all that matters then why bother with society and contracts and trust to begin with?

@Uncle Frogy
So we just have to accept that a woman’s word means nothing? That all men that marry are running the same risk? That women have no honor?
And women complain they have no power, women complain they have it so bad, men just have to accept the fact they could cheat. Well that road runs both ways and since a woman does not have t pay for the results of a man cheating then I say men should not have to pay for women cheating.
Men and women should have to pay for their own choices, regardless of what is best for the child; and when the child asks why their life is so poor the government should say “because your momma was a slut.” Shame these people, male and female, into complying with civilized society, or simply have every woman pay solely for all their children and let men use their money as they see fit. If they wish to Gift money to women to help raise children they are pretty sure are theirs then fine, make it a gift.

No script and I am not an MRA. I have thought about issues ike this for years, ever since I studied biology, and legal philosophy.
What is best?
It all starts by determining the facts, through a society of lies. Even swans appear one way while they are actually another.
But we are Humans we are Civilization. Competition is Animal Nature Cooperation is Human nature.
This very internet exists because of cooperation.

No one said people can’t CHOOSE to do that. No one said Love does not exist ab initio of genetic relatedness. Otherwise people would rarely mate. I will not go into sub-speciation and MHC issues.
But forcing that love out of a man, you cannot force love and bitterness and resentment build up and that could lead to abuse and the law knows this so eventual the father is removed from the child’s life for the child’s own safety and thus your whole argument for love falls apart and the “father” becomes an ATM.
Nothing can be more dehumanizing than to reduce a person so an object, whether it be a sex-object or a money-object, both are objects used for gratification.
We are people and not objects.

@ Nerd
“MRbobcat, why do you sound like an MRA who won’t take the responsibility for what they do in life, and are excusing those who won’t live up to their commitments? Which is every child born while a man is married is his. Your misogyny is showing.”

In what delusional world are you living in?
I do not take responsibility for anyone else but myself, and I know of no man that refuses to be accountable for his actions.
I am not excusing anyone for failing to live up to their commitments, I understand that marriage is hard and I understand that people cheat, and I also understand that a bad marriage can lead to more bad stuff. I have no idea what you are talking about.
What insane world are you living in? Where did you get that sexist and uneven opinion of what makes a child belong to a particular man?
This does not make sense.
So then you want a world in which a man is married and a wife has her children fathered by other men and that is what a marriage is now? Why would any man get married ever again? Also, then since this would make paternity testing irrelevant then do away with it entirely and every woman that is NOT married when she gives birth is completely and SOLELY financially responsible for those children.

I PERSONALLY will accept your premise if all non-married women are solely responsible for their children when they are born.

It is wrong, utterly wrong, to drag the government into this situation and force a man to do something against his will, this is an abuse of Power that equates to rape.

Really. I’d be willing to bet it’s nothing at all like being raped, let alone equal to it. Of course, I have a frame of reference, having been raped. I was raped for 6 years a child, starting when I was 3 years old. When I was 16, I had the experience of a stranger rape by a serial rapist and murderer. Beaten, knifed, strangled, repeatedly raped. So, which one of those would you say was equal to having to pay child support for a child you helped raise?

Y’know, I’ve been in a situation where I got nailed in a matter of taxes, and had about every freaking cent yanked away in order to pay this problem away. Oh, I was left enough to live on, barely. Not one thin, run over penny for any sort of enjoyable activity, mind. So, for a while, life sucked in a financial sense, but here’s the funny thing – it wasn’t even remotely like being raped.

Y’know, my husband has sprogs. Well, they are adults nowadays, have been for quite some time. When we were first married, a substantial amount of money went into their care, and that went on for a good number of years. Now, they weren’t my sprogs. Nonetheless, I didn’t whine, cry, moan and piss into the wind over it, because sprogs require basic care and good relationships with the adults in their lives, whether those are blood ties or no. So, that was all done with a minimum of fuss. And here’s another funny thing – the couple of decades doing all that? It wasn’t even remotely like being raped.

So here’s my suggestion: shut the fuck up, and don’t bring up rape again. You don’t have the slightest idea of what that’s like.

Oh, and another thing, whiny mrbobcat. If a man is so concerned about ending up with a sprog which isn’t his biologically, there’s a fix. Get yourself fixed, so you’re all juice, no seeds. If you want to be able to breed at some point, store your precious, magickal fluid at a sperm bank, then get yourself fixed. There’d be no foolin’ you then, eh? Take responsibility for your own reproductive abilities. And no fucking whining about “why should a man have to do all thaaaaaaat?” Well, why the fuck bother trusting those icky wimminses? Your penis, your responsibility.

mrbobcat (at various posts) Are you aware that the 1999 Blood Bank testing data is *all* from fathers that suspected they were not the biological father? That is to say… most cases in the AABB report are from men who already suspect (or wish) they are not the biological father.

So it turns out that they are wrong *most of the time.*

Depending on which report you read and from which year the ‘rejection rate’ appears to range from about 16% to 30%. Here is a link to the report from 2010: http://www.aabb.org/sa/facilities/Documents/rtannrpt10.pdf
Please also note the part about, ‘MISCONCEPTIONS IN PATERNITY TESTING – EXCLUSION RATE’ because it addresses several factors that have not yet been brought up. Whatever number you pull out of the AABB reports you have to remember that it does NOT represent the overall rate of deceived fathers. I doesn’t even come close.

This show is not going to be critical of men’s rights, but of the men’s rights movement and some of the rabid misogynists who cloak themselves in the mantle of equality.”

No, most of them say straight out that their mission statements they do not support some ‘silly’ idea of equality between men and women. They are flat-out Male Supremacists. No cloaking in the mantle of equality.

You know what I fucking hate about the ‘voluntary child support’ argument? That the assholes making it seem to think the kids are pawns in a power game: if they don’t feel like paying child support, they shouldn’t have to, if they think they aren’t the father, they should get to abandon the child, and that if they don’t like the mother, they should get to deprive the child of support.

For all the sweating. pissing and moaning over how deprived they are that they would have to provide support, not a one of these assholes seems to ask what it’s like to grow up as a child when your father doesn’t want to pay for anything because they’d rather use their money on themselves (like my childhood, say), doesn’t want to provide any kind of other support because men are the money providers and past the point where the kid isn’t starving to death, who gives a shit (like my childhood, say), or where the father seems to think that all issues related to supporting and caring for their children are a game which they intend to win by any means necessary (like all those fucking dads who kill their children or exes over paying child support.)

Fuck those people. Fuck them all. You don’t want to have kids? Take fucking precautions, assholes. Get your fucking tubes tied. Wear condoms and use spermicide. Take responsibility for your part of not conceiving. And for fuck’s sake, don’t treat your kids like pawns in a fight between yourself and your wife/ex/girlfriend.

Bob says he’s not an MRA, so we shouldn’t call him one. Eugenicist seems more appropriate, what with the fixation on genes. Propertarian would be another, since he seems to see children as such.

Men and women should have to pay for their own choices, regardless of what is best for the child; and when the child asks why their life is so poor the government should say “because your momma was a slut.”

Biblical patriarch, there’s another epithet we can use. Sins of the parents visited on the offspring.

I do not take responsibility for anyone else but myself

Sociopath, that works too.

It all adds up to someone who I sure hope never reproduces. I’d hate for there to be children who have to deal with him in any way.

“A leading Beijing paternity testing center says up to 30 percent of tested men were not the biological fathers of their children.”

And the tested men were a random sample of all fathers?

No?

Didn’t think so.

I like how you skipped over the most damning data, the 1999 blood bank testing of 280,000 men, of who only 70% were the actual fathers.

For fuck’s sake, you quoted:

“Lest anyone think that there is nothing but misogynistic bigotry behind the concern over accurate claims of paternity, a 1999 study by the American Association of Blood Banks discovered that in 30 percent of 280,000 blood tests performed to determine paternity, the man tested was not actually the biological father of his children.”

I’ve added the boldface. Apparently, you overlooked that part while quoting it!

Do I need to spell it out? Only cases where paternity was already in doubt were tested!!!

Blame the victim much? Shortcomings as a “husband and father”? What Patriarchal gender roles are you referencing when you say “shortcomings”? Which shortcomings are they? NOT crying, NOT laboring, NOT being masculine enough? Or what really I ask?

What?

Let me reword: shortcomings as a spouse and parent.

Evolution cares about net population growth

Evolution doesn’t care. Evolution just happens.

god

even religious

:-D Have you found the wrong blog! :-D

If population growth is all you are concerned about

Nowhere has Rutee Katreya claimed to be evolution.

There are only two kinds of men that would do such a thing fools and saints.

Religious as you evidently are, I’d have thought you’d consider saints to be people who should be imitated… shouldn’t one strive for sainthood?

He is a fool if she lied, cheated and mislead the poor man into wasting his life, time and money.

How is this a waste?

How is raising a child a waste?

The only reason for consent in a reproductive relationship is an equitable propagation of genes. I could go into a treatise,

Please do, because I’m not getting it.

To use someone else simply for sexual gratification is to simply masturbate into another or using another for your own selfish ends.

How is it selfish when it’s mutual?

Men and women should have to pay for their own choices, regardless of what is best for the child; and when the child asks why their life is so poor the government should say “because your momma was a slut.”

You are an incredible asshole.

You want to punish children for what their parents have done.

You want to punish people for what other people have done!

If that’s not evil, please tell me what is.

The child needs help. Telling the child “your momma was a slut” doesn’t help. Telling the child “I refuse to help you because your momma was a slut” is mind-bogglingly evil.

Competition is Animal Nature Cooperation is Human nature.

Study biology again, then. Perhaps begin with vampire bats.

But forcing that love out of a man, you cannot force love

If you’re capable of switching love off, just so, after 10 years, you’re a dangerous madman or -woman as the case may be.

We are people

Children, too, are people. They aren’t punishments.

So then you want a world in which a man is married and a wife has her children fathered by other men and that is what a marriage is now? Why would any man get married ever again?

…Because they’re in love with that particular woman, perhaps?

Guess what: not everybody even wants to have chilren. Not all men do, and not all women do. *eyeroll*

I tell ya, for a guy who is apparently/self-reportedly not an arch individualist, a philosopher and student of law, likes cooperation and brings up Rawls for crying out loud – all the arguments are cold economics and game theory, as though that’s how human relationships actually or even ideally function.
Now, I can see how people do this a bit too often in business theory and such and forgive it somewhat, but this is fucking marriage we’re talking about.

The 1.9% of men that had very high confidence they were the father were wrong, normally most men that think they are the father are wrong 1 out of 10 times. So that means 10% of men are cuckolded. – mrbobcat

mrbobcat: Apparently, you do not understand statistics very well. The good news is that a lot of us are educated and/or have training using statistics. If you are actually interested in learning how they work, you should ask.

He is a fool if she lied, cheated and mislead the poor man into wasting his life, time and money.

There we have it. mrbobcat thinks loving and supporting a child is a “waste” of a man’s “life, time and money” if it turns out the child isn’t biologically his. If he doesn’t abandon the child upon finding out it isn’t “his” after all, he’s a fool.

mrbobcat, you’re obviously deeply upset by the fact that some women cheat and that sometimes cheating results in children that aren’t the biological offspring of the women’s husbands.

The problem is that these sad facts do not mean that men are oppressed. Nor does the fact that family law is supposed to put children’s interests first mean men are oppressed.

made up man made premise

Wut? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

–And also your argument skills. Re your absurd list at comment #77:

1. A sad anecdote is irrelevant here. Do you think we’re arguing that people cheating on their significant others, doesn’t cause pain? Do you think anyone here is arguing that it’s OK for women to lie about paternity, or that finding out he’s not the biological father of a child isn’t painful for a man who thought he was?

Nobody here has argued such things.

2.

Nine percent admitted that they had done so, and that their husbands are not aware of it. An additional 16 percent admitted that they’re not positive about who fathered one or more of their kids.

You’re offering information about its customers provided in a press release by a dating site that caters to married people looking to cheat. Did you suppose that those numbers that you typed–“Nine percent”, “an additional 16 percent”–have anything to say about the actual frequency with which men in general wind up unknowingly caring for children who aren’t theirs? Or were you hoping we’d just be dazzled by the numbers out of context, as you apparently were?

3. A Beijing paternity testing center–again, what does this questionable data have to do with the price of eggs? (No pun intended.) Paternity testing centers exist to determine paternity when paternity is in doubt.

4. Wasn’t this addressed earlier? People testing to determine paternity are testing because paternity is in doubt. So in this case 30% of fathers who suspected the kid wasn’t theirs turned out to be right–OK. Your point?

5. (Did you overlook the part where Cecil says the overall rate looks to be “about 3.7%”?)

…if a man’s worth (I will say that a “man’s worth” is objectifying a man and making him into an ATM machine) is based on his willingness to father and raise a child that is not his

Who said any such thing, you fuckwit? What was said was that a man who would act as father to child for a number of years and then abandon the child and cease to care about its wellbeing after he found out he wasn’t the biological father would be a lousy human being.

…then where is the woman’s worthlessness for sleeping with a man other than her husband?

You think people who cheat on their spouses are “worthless”? Or just women who do it? Men cheat too, you know.

Where is her cop-ability and responsibility in this scenario?

We didn’t address it, because the original point was about law, not morality. I think it’s wrong for people to cheat on their spouses (by which I mean sneaking around, not consensually polyamorous relationships). But family law governing parental responsibility toward children isn’t about enforcing marital fidelity.

Is she not a slut to be shamed for violating a contract to her partner, god and government?

You take that horseshit right on out of here. Slut-shaming is toxic, misogynistic, and cruel. God doesn’t exist. And the goddamn government has absolutely no goddamn business poking its nose into anybody’s sex life.

If Randian selfishness is all that matters then why bother with society and contracts and trust to begin with?

mrbobcat #90

I do not take responsibility for anyone else but myself

Maybe you should think a liiitle more about internal consistency, bobcat old bean. Because right now, you sound like a complete idiot in addition to a flaming asshole. You can’t even keep your justifications for your shitheadedness the same for 4 posts running.

“Rape is about power not sex.”
So if rape is about power and not sex then any use of power to extract emotional satisfaction or any kind of gratification out of someone is rape. Are you now agreeing rape is about more than power?
I never said I was an MRA and I do not like the Tea Party. I personally take people into consideration otherwise I would not bother writing about this. I expected everyone to agree with the idea that cheating was wrong and that people should be held accountable for their actions.
It is your own Rutee that does not care about anyone else. I personally care a lot, I care about children and society and others, otherwise I would not bother writing.
But I can feel the hate flowing through you, the rationalized abuse is strong with you.

then any use of power to extract emotional satisfaction or any kind of gratification out of someone is rape.

Only if you can show penetration of one of your orifices. Otherwise, you are nothing but a hyperbolic liar and bullshitter, whose word isn’t worth the electrons used to post your misogynistic fuckwittery. Which is the case…

If it is so easy and obvious then cite one. I do not hate women and have never said a hateful thing about them that was not a question posed as an example of blind double standard-ness. If you cannot understand rhetorical irony then step out of yourself for a second and start replacing gender words with race labels and you will see the innate intolerance.

Lets paraphare some of those completely totes not hateful things you’ve never said:

Hi Junior, now that your mother has divorced me I don’t consider you my kid anymore. Food? Clearly children of sluts don’t deserve to exist much less eat, how dare you steal from me?

It is abundantly clear that rhetorical irony is a concept that eludes your narrow intellect, as do the concepts of love, marriage, and not being a despicable human. Please leave the planet immediately.

You may not say you’re an MRA but you parrot many of their positions extremely well. So well, in fact, that I suspect you’ve had much experience in expressing your hatred of women. Your obvious fixation that many if not most wives cheat on their husbands is an example of this hatred.

Many libertarians dislike the Tea Party for not being ideologically pure anarcho-capitalists.

then any use of power to extract emotional satisfaction or any kind of gratification out of someone is rape.

NO, it is not. Again, you festering pimple on the arse of humanity, unless you have been raped, and have an actual frame of reference, shut. the. fuck. up. about rape. You are demeaning every single person who has been raped, and there are a whole lot of us here at Pharyngula. We Are Legion, and it is for us to talk about rape, not you in your attempt to paint the lives of men as something awful, thanks to all those icky wimmin in the world.

Growing up with a parent who begrudgingly provides support (or just refuses to because they’re pissed at someone else) is bruising to your sense of self, because refusing to support or providing as little as possible tells the child that they are clearly unimportant. My father, as often as possible, tried to pay no more than $!00 for a year of clothes, including underwear and shoes* while buying himself very expensive clothing, My mother had to beg him to spend an extra $20 so I could get a winter jacket.

I got the message really quickly that I was not important or valuable, and having to scour discount bins while my father wore suits made me feel worthless (of course, both parents were helping that along in other ways, including my father’s libertarian rants about the fact that my mother and I were leeches** and the refusal to take me to the doctor when I was injured or ill). It’s incredibly painful because you know you’re supposed to be important to your parents, and you can never figure out why you aren’t important enough to provide care for.

Is that something, mrbobcat, that you really feel comfortable doing to children or espousing be done for children? I’m fucking asking you directly.

* He makes over $120k before returns on his investments and income from rental properties. My mother and father go on vacation twice a year and also for the holidays, including cruises and trips to Hawaii. They don’t contribute to my bills, didn’t pay for my schooling, have never bought me groceries and emancipated me as a minor.

** I went from 14 to 31 doing hard physical labor because if I expected to get anything, I’d goddamn well pay for it myself. Now I teach, which is a different kind of labor. My father used to lend me out to roof, pour concrete and landscape. I got almost none of the money I earned that way, and the few times I did buy something (it took me a year to save $100 to get an Nintendo, and they gave it to my brother because girls don’t play video games), it was often given away–the family wanted to make sure I knew the value of work. even if I didn’t get anything for it. I did get an allowance if I worked at least 12 hours a week for my parents: $5. If I didn’t eat lunch all week, I could make it $15.

@Tethys
Ha! You don’t know me, you don’t know me at all. I never had any object run from me, and I never abused anyone. I have always treated people fairly and equitably. I try to treat people the way I want to be treated, so your accusations do not matter to me.
I do not care what name callers say on the internet, I am concerned with ideas. The internet was made by and for people to share ideas and thoughts.
I am not a troll because trolls use logical fallacies and inconsistencies to get LULZ.
The only counter position I have read here is … It is for the children’s benefit.
Well then let’s start there.
What is best for children and why should we as people in a society care?

Refusal to answer is indicative of an echo-chamber mentality where you only acknowledge what you already want to hear … ergo, you are on the wrong blog and doing skepticism, atheism, science and free-thought a disservice.

You claim you treat people fairly and equitably. Yet you equate a man paying for the food, clothing, shelter, education, and care of his children with rape. I’m speaking as a survivor of rape. Shut up. Please. You are actively hurting people. With obvious intent and joy.

is a lie that should stop being used to soften the fact that sex is not always pretty or nice.

Sorry fuckwitted liberturd, you are wrong. Rape is about power, not sex. There is nothing about your avoiding your duties as a citizen that make you less than a parasite on society. Nothing you say is cogent, nothing you say is legitimate, it is nothing but sloganeering of an abject loser. Welcome to reality, where you fail common sense.

I envy you. Since you are adamant that rape is not about power, about dominating someone, about forcing someone to do what you want, it is obvious that you have been lucky and are not a rape survivor. I envy that you can be so cavalier dismissing the pain, the memories, the terror, the guilty feelings, the life-long fear, that accompanies being a survivor.

You are intentionally hurting people who have survived rape. Please stop. Please leave.

I appreciate that you were abused by Humans for so long that you have issues with men, you even refer to your own husband’s children as “sprogs” which is a misuse of the term, or if you are using it correctly you are deeming those children good for nothing but dying and killing.
As for your supposed solution to your made-up problem. I, may or may not have any children, but officially no I do not. Thus I am not addressing these issues due to any innate self-interest; I am not selfish. I address these issues because they have always bothered my mind.
I am not gay but I stand up for gay marriage and people, I am not of any ethnic group but I stand up for them too, I stand up for the handicapped, children, all those that are not treated equally simply because of the way they were born.
I am not out for revenge on a kind of person, I do not believe in passing the sins of the father unto the sons and the sons of the sons for generations. I do not believe, unlike most modern day social justice warriors, that Equality equates to Punishment.

I also know of a man that had the exact procedure done to him for the exact reason you said and oddly a woman he had sex with claimed he got her pregnant. Ask yourself if women are selling positive pregnancy tests on Craigslist for fun or for some other reason.
I can’t figure this one out … seriously … why would any woman buy a positive pregnancy test?

What is best for children and why should we as people in a society care?

Not treating them like dirt if they happen to have a “wrong” parent. Not blaming them for being conceived by anyone other than you. Treating them as human beings not owned goods.
Do you really imagine you are such a virtuous person when many people refute your stupid opinions? You could try listening and learning, until then you are just another MRA troll.
The “echo chamber” you speak of is in your own skull.

To All,
I got stuff to do, so as a matter of respect, if I fail to respond in-full forgive, I will just be brief to the following.
@ Og. It was an example of rhetorical irony, to get to the point that many neo-social justice warriors say “Rape is about power and not sex.” Thank you for agreeing and I have met many others like you and helped them; so please do not infer me as DOING nothing to help others.
@ David: Thanks man, I never thought people were that terrible that it is a huge issue, I was just trying to see if what the guy was saying was at ll true, I am a skeptic at heart and training, also, the rates in the wild for most animals is high, anecdotal evidence etc., Also like I said to start … split the difference and get about 10% … 10% is still unacceptable. I also wanted to see if these Freethought Blogs were really as close-minded as I have heard.
@ mouthymctits: I agree, if a man does not want a kid he should not have to pay, because if a woman does not want a kid she can terminate it. It is cool for a woman to say “I don’t want a kid by this man” but if a man says “I don’t want a kid with this woman” All of the sudden he has to pay. If she owes no money for terminating a man’s child then he owes no money for her choice to have his.
@ Ray: Ha! Too late and she and he are doing quite well thank you; and they are looking fine too! Your word play is fun. Eugenicist? Never. Propertarian? Not technically. Biblical Patriarch? Ha, how wrong you are, and that quote was from a woman that was describing a female very close to me. Sociopath? Your use of propertarian would seem to imply a pathological and pedantic fixation, but no as well. Just because one does not take responsibility for others does not mean was does not care for others. It is all about female mate choice in biology of mammals, so do not blame me for what women find desirable. I really like that girl too and sex liked me, best sex of my life … probably why she kept the kid. Healthy both of them … and good looking too. If you don’t like my kind then stay away from the pretty ones.
(Too long … too many people, so many misconceptions.)

Judge people by their actions and not their words, judge men and women by their actions. Since you cannot see peoples actions on the web then just address their words without inferring crap.

PS. Thank you Ray, I have not thought about that great woman in a few years … thank you, for bringing such a beautiful memory to my mind. I mildly miss her and my son, but she was in another situation at the time and so was I we have met since and she is fine with just using me in that way. She is smart and beautiful and self-supporting and the kid is a great kid with tons of potential.

PPS. Eugenicist? Maybe … well I do make one hell of a pretty baby! ;) Thanks man, I am smiling.

No shit. I realize you have serious problems in the thinking department, and you are a fine example of an indecent human being, however, get at least this much straight: rape is not sex. Of any kind. I don’t care how bad sex you may have had, or inflicted on a willing partner, it is not rape. You don’t have the slightest idea of what rape is, you flaming doucheweasel.

I did not agree with you and I do not agree with you. Read what I fucking wrote. I am a rape survivor. Do you understand that? I have a fucking clue what it is that rapists want. They want to dominate. They want to embarrass. They want to hurt, to terrorize. And they succeed. Rape just happens to be the vehicle they use to dominate others.

I do not care what name callers say on the internet, I am concerned with ideas. The internet was made by and for people to share ideas and thoughts.

Refusal to answer is indicative of an echo-chamber mentality where you only acknowledge what you already want to hear … ergo, you are on the wrong blog and doing skepticism, atheism, science and free-thought a disservice.

Oh, so you’re one of those assholes. How original.

I would now like that axiom to never be used again and for all that use it to be treated with the same hate and abuse I have been.

Whiny and presumptuous to boot.

I am not gay but I stand up for gay marriage and people, I am not of any ethnic group but I stand up for them too

Do you want a cookie or something? You’re so big on ideas over people, why don’t you try defending the shit you’ve said on this thread, rather that your character, which we couldn’t care less about.

I do not believe in passing the sins of the father unto the sons and the sons of the sons for generations.

Then what was that “Mommy was a slut” crap about?

I do not believe, unlike most modern day social justice warriors, that Equality equates to Punishment.

And now you’re just descending into incoherence, as those who Capitalize Random Nouns tend to do.

As for the rest of your creepy word salad response to me…yeesh. No comment.

Judge people by their actions and not their words, judge men and women by their actions. Since you cannot see peoples actions on the web then just address their words without inferring crap.

Since our only knowledge of you is from what you write, we have no choice but to judge you by your words. For all we know, you’re actually a nice person, pleasant to be around, helpful and courteous to all, and a pleasure to know. But your words give us a completely different picture of you. You’re a sociopath who hates women and considers children to be chattel. You’re selfish, a boor, and nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are. Your reading comprehension is poor and you twist what others say to match your preconceptions. In short, you’re a typical MRA troll.

I like how you skipped over the most damning data, the 1999 blood bank testing of 280,000 men, of who only 70% were the actual fathers.

Your own source says it only surveys dudes who think they weren’t the father. Your own source says those dudes are usually wrong, even after we select for the dudes who are most likely to be correct. I didn’t skip anything. I didn’t have to.

. You also misrepresented the 1.9%,

In that I read it and accurately reported it.

It is your own Rutee that does not care about anyone else.

Yeah, that’s entirely what it is when I say “Tax me to pay for all children everywhere”, as a woman who will never have children.

Paternity certainty is part of evolutionary biology studies it goes into determining which traits are propagating and through which individuals and is used to help calculate fitness.

so is survival of the entire population. The latter is what actually matters, more than who’s genes were passed on.

So a woman that makes an agreement, a legal, social and even religious agreement is not to be held accountable for violating it?

What part of “I don’t care about cheating as long as its between consenting adults” sounds like it only matters when it’s a woman?

Have you not studied any Ethics of Philosophy?

How do you think I arrived at the conclusion that cheating isn’t really a problem outside of the directly affected?

Look up Rawls and the like, would lead very nicely into your whole Social Security, care for the child and the population not the man or the individual POV.

The veil of justice has nothing to say about not giving a shit about cheating in general.

So you are saying the words that come out of a woman’s mouth are meaningless and hold no value or weight. Wow, well thanks for the flask-back to the 50′s, I missed Madmen but I see now why they ignored female opinions … their words mean nothing.

You’re going to play this, when “don’t sleep around” is part of almost nobody’s marriage oaths? This is growing more and more asinine.

I will end responding to you there, since you just burned your own side enough by stating women’s words are meaningless and that all they care about is what they can get out of men and society.

No, I said you’re not breaking a contract by cheating. And you pretty much never are, except possibly with your god (and it’s not much of a contract if only one of you signed it). You chose to interpret a very clear “No, that’s not how it works” as “Women’s words mean nothing”, because you’re a mendacious fuck who can’t read words that are clearly written (as when you ignored everything I stated about paternity data).

Interestingly, whenever I think about what being a parent to my children means, the fact that 50% of the DNA in every skincell they shed is mine doesn’t feature.
What I think about is when they first started to smile and strech their arms in my direction, the first spinach I fed them in tiny servings, their first steps, reading them books, cradling them when they’re sick and being puked all over by them, too.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

I really tried to avoid this thread. I really did. And heavy workload at school helped. But now, here I am, reading the damn thing and

abewoelk @36 says:

Please note there is also a whole boatload of cases holding that boys who were the victims of statutory rape — underage boys who had sex with older women — are also liable for child support, despite their legal status as rape victims.

abewoelk? I recommend soaking a towel in exceedingly hot water and wrapping it around your head for an hour. Maybe when all those clogs drain you can have another go at explaining how the MRA movement is totally necessary for society to accomplish gender justice.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

Let me begin by pointing out that paternity presumption is not an inescapable curse.

It is a **presumption** and by definition any presumption is rebuttable, the same as any trial court decision is appealable. Now that doesn’t mean you have any grounds to rebut/appeal (the kid could be that of a given husband with the husband’s wife having had no sex with others) or that, even if grounds exist, you can prove them (the father of your wife’s child is your identical twin), or that, even if grounds exist and you have good proof your appeal will be heard (missing the date of appeal dooms the appeal in nearly all cases regardless of merits).

But more importantly, ***the presumption of paternity is a solution created by men for a problem created by men’s selfish interests in patriarchy in accordance with the preferred, men-privileging, women-denigrating principles of patriarchy***.

It comes from the idea that wives were owned by husbands, children by fathers. If a bull came onto your property and impregnated your cow, the resulting calf was owned by you. Congratulations, you get the new property given the pre-PCR inability to run DNA tests, even though you can no more prove it is yours than you can prove it isn’t! Sure that bull can run wild on your property, but the responsible owner still gets the chattels.

As in all rules, there are situations in which the rule to solve a problem runs up against an unanticipated situation in which application of the rule creates injustice. But that doesn’t mean that either the creation of the rule or the inability of modern legislatures to reform the rule (in those jurisdictions where a need for reform is proven) is a problem created by feminists or feminisms.

The fact that patriarchy bites men in the ass does not mean patriarchy is a feminist conspiracy. It is not some truth of nature that the two enemies of yours are friends.

Let me put it more succinctly, abewoelk:

The transitive fraternalism of hatred is not a winning argument: it is a logical fallacy, in particular the fallacy that is the only true common thread between the conspiracy nuts of the world. To rely on it is to concede the utter bankruptcy of your thought.